Queeneth E. Esq
I'm sorry this has dragged on so long. The hardest truth here is that the MERS/county-recording discrepancy by itself is usually not enough in Pennsylvania to unwind a mortgage or a foreclosure. The Third Circuit has recognized that Pennsylvania law does not require every mortgage transfer to be publicly recorded, and another Third Circuit opinion later described the MERS streamlined recording method as generally in accord with Pennsylvania law.
In Pennsylvania foreclosure cases, the plaintiff must plead the mortgage and any assignments, and it must also have the right to enforce the note. The Superior Court has said a foreclosing party needs both the mortgage and the right to make demand on the note. So the better question is not "was everything recorded in the county?" but instead: who had the note and mortgage when the foreclosure complaint was filed, what assignments were pled, and what proof was used in court?
Pennsylvania Rule 1147 requires a foreclosure complaint to state the mortgage, any assignments, and where they were recorded. Pennsylvania courts have treated possession of the note plus the mortgage and assignment evidence as enough to establish standing in many cases.
On the 2013 servicing transfer to the mortgage company, federal law did require servicing-transfer notices: generally, the old servicer had to notify the borrower at least 15 days before the transfer, and the new servicer within 15 days after. The statute also says the transfer of servicing does not change the loan terms except terms directly related to servicing. A borrower can sue for RESPA servicing violations, but the limitations period for (12 U.S.C. § 2605) claims is 3 years. That timing problem is a significant one now.
Federal damages claims that people often pursue in mortgage cases usually have short statutes of limitations: TILA damages claims generally have a 1-year limitations period, RESPA § 2605 claims generally 3 years, and FDCPA claims generally 1 year from when the violation occurs. The Supreme Court has specifically held that the FDCPA's one-year clock ordinarily runs from the date of the violation, not discovery. Also, the FDCPA definition excludes a person collecting a debt that was not in default when it was obtained, so if the mortgage company acquired the loan while payments were current, a classic FDCPA debt-validation theory may have been weak from the start unless other facts made them a debt collector anyway.
That does not mean nothing improper occurred. It means that many of the obvious federal claims tied to 2013 and 2014 are likely time-barred now, and a new lawsuit trying to invalidate a completed state foreclosure usually faces major jurisdiction and preclusion problems. Federal courts often treat attempts to undo a final state foreclosure judgment as barred if the requested relief would negate that judgment.
Based on the information provided, the realistic paths remaining now are these:
A document-for-document post-judgment review, not a broad "MERS was illegal" theory. Gather the foreclosure complaint, all exhibits, the note, any allonges, every recorded assignment, the judgment, sheriff's sale papers, and any ejectment docket. The question is whether the plaintiff actually had the legal right to foreclose when it filed, and whether the record used in court was false, backdated, or materially incomplete.
A focused review of notices and procedure. Pennsylvania foreclosure practice requires the complaint to plead the mortgage and assignments, and Pennsylvania residential foreclosures ordinarily involve pre-foreclosure notices such as Act 6 and Act 91 notices. Whether that helps now depends on what happened in the docket and whether those issues were raised.
Current credit-reporting disputes, if the foreclosure, balance, dates, or status are still being reported inaccurately. The FTC advises that you can dispute errors with both the credit bureau and the furnisher.
Any truly new conduct that is still within the limitations period, such as recent collection misconduct, recent false credit furnishing, or a recent state-actor violation. (42 U.S.C. § 1983) exists for deprivations of rights under color of state law, but Pennsylvania uses a 2-year limitations period for § 1983 claims, so older civil-rights theories are generally a problem unless there is a newer actionable event.
Is there anything else you would like me to explain or any additional information you need?
Solved
Create Document
18
6
